Loading (50 kb)...'

(continued)
(4.3) Freeze Frame.
(4.3.1) "Freeze frame" information required to be stored pursuant to sections (d)(2.2.4), (e)(3.4.3), and (e)(6.4.4) shall be made available on demand through the standardized data link connector in accordance with SAE J1979 specifications.
(4.3.2) "Freeze frame" conditions must include the fault code which caused the data to be stored and all of the signals required in section (f)(4.2.1) except number of stored confirmed fault codes and MIL status. Freeze frame conditions shall also include all of the signals required on the vehicle in sections (f)(4.2.2) through (4.2.4) that are used for diagnostic or control purposes in the specific diagnostic or emission-critical powertrain control unit that stored the fault code except: oxygen sensor output, air/fuel ratio sensor output, catalyst temperature, evaporative system vapor pressure, monitor status since last engine shut off, distance traveled while MIL activated, distance traveled since fault memory last cleared, and number of warm-up cycles since fault memory last cleared.
(4.3.3) Only one frame of data is required to be recorded. Manufacturers may choose to store additional frames provided that at least the required frame can be read by a scan tool meeting SAE J1978 specifications.
(4.4) Fault Codes
(4.4.1) For all monitored components and systems, stored pending and confirmed fault codes shall be made available through the diagnostic connector in accordance with SAE J1979 specifications. Standardized fault codes conforming to SAE J2012 shall be employed.
(4.4.2) The stored fault code shall, to the fullest extent possible, pinpoint the likely cause of the malfunction. To the extent feasible on all 2005 and subsequent model year vehicles, manufacturers shall use separate fault codes for every diagnostic where the diagnostic and repair procedure or likely cause of the failure is different. In general, rationality and functional diagnostics shall use different fault codes than the respective circuit continuity diagnostics. Additionally, input component circuit continuity diagnostics shall use different fault codes for distinct malfunctions (e.g., out-of-range low, out-of-range high, open circuit, etc.).
(4.4.3) Manufacturers shall use appropriate SAE-defined fault codes of SAE J2012 (e.g., P0xxx, P2xxx) whenever possible. With Executive Officer approval, manufacturers may use manufacturer-defined fault codes in accordance with SAE J2012 specifications (e.g., P1xxx). Factors to be considered by the Executive Officer for approval shall include the lack of available SAE-defined fault codes, uniqueness of the diagnostic or monitored component, expected future usage of the diagnostic or component, and estimated usefulness in providing additional diagnostic and repair information to service technicians. Manufacturer-defined fault codes shall be used consistently (i.e., the same fault code may not be used to represent two different failure modes) across a manufacturer's entire product line.
(4.4.4) A fault code (pending and/or confirmed, as required in sections (d) and (e)) shall be stored and available to an SAE J1978 scan tool within 10 seconds after a diagnostic has determined that a malfunction has occurred.
(4.4.5) Pending fault codes:
(A) On all 2005 and subsequent model year vehicles, pending fault codes for all components and systems (including continuously and non-continuously monitored components) shall be made available through the diagnostic connector in accordance with SAE J1979 specifications (e.g., Mode/Service $07).
(B) On all 2005 and subsequent model year vehicles, a pending fault code(s) shall be stored and available through the diagnostic connector for all currently malfunctioning monitored component(s) or system(s), regardless of the MIL illumination status or confirmed fault code status (e.g., even after a pending fault has matured to a confirmed fault code and the MIL is illuminated, a pending fault code shall be stored and available if the most recent monitoring event indicates the component is malfunctioning).
(C) Manufacturers using alternate statistical protocols for MIL illumination as allowed in section (d)(2.2.3) shall submit to the Executive Officer a protocol for setting pending fault codes. The Executive Officer shall approve the proposed protocol upon determining that, overall, it is equivalent to the requirements in sections (f)(4.4.5)(A) and (B) and that it effectively provides service technicians with a quick and accurate indication of a pending failure.
(4.5) Test Results
(4.5.1) For all monitored components and systems identified in section (e)(1) through (e)(8) except misfire detection and fuel system monitoring, results of the most recent monitoring of the components and systems and the test limits established for monitoring the respective components and systems shall be stored and available through the data link in accordance with SAE J1979 specifications.
(4.5.2) The test results shall be reported such that properly functioning components and systems (e.g., "passing" systems) do not store test values outside of the established test limits.
(4.5.3) The test results shall be stored until updated by a more recent valid test result or the fault memory of the OBD II system computer is cleared. Upon fault memory being cleared, test results reported for monitors that have not yet completed since the last time the fault memory was cleared shall report values that do not indicate a failure (i.e., a test value which is outside of the test limits).
(4.5.4) Additionally, for vehicles using ISO 15765-4 (see section (f)(3.4)) as the communication protocol:
(A) The test results and limits shall be made available in the standardized format specified in SAE J1979 for the ISO 15765-4 protocol.
(B) Test limits shall include both minimum and maximum acceptable values and shall be reported for all monitored components and systems identified in sections (e)(1) through (e)(8), except fuel system monitoring. The test limits shall be defined so that a test result equal to either test limit is a "passing" value, not a "failing" value.
(C) For 2005 and subsequent model year vehicles, misfire monitoring test results shall be calculated and reported in the standardized format specified in SAE J1979.
(D) Monitors that have not yet completed since the last time the fault memory was cleared shall report values of zero for the test result and test limits.
(E) All test results and test limits shall always be reported and the test results shall be stored until updated by a more recent valid test result or the fault memory of the OBD II system computer is cleared.
(F) The OBD II system shall store and report unique test results for each separate diagnostic (e.g., an OBD II system with individual evaporative system diagnostics for 0.040 inch and 0.020 inch leaks shall separately report 0.040 inch and 0.020 inch test results).
(4.6) Software Calibration Identification: On all vehicles, a software calibration identification number (CAL ID) for the diagnostic or emission critical powertrain control unit(s) shall be made available through the standardized data link connector in accordance with the SAE J1979 specifications. A unique CAL ID shall be used for every emission-related calibration and/or software set having at least one bit of different data from any other emission-related calibration and/or software set. Control units coded with multiple emission or diagnostic calibrations and/or software sets shall indicate a unique CAL ID for each variant in a manner that enables an off-board device to determine which variant is being used by the vehicle. Control units that utilize a strategy that will result in MIL illumination if the incorrect variant is used (e.g., control units that contain variants for manual and automatic transmissions but will illuminate the MIL if the variant selected does not match the type of transmission on the vehicle) are not required to use unique CAL IDs.
(4.7) Software Calibration Verification Number
(4.7.1) All 2005 [FN2] and subsequent model year vehicles shall use an algorithm to calculate a calibration verification number (CVN) that verifies the on-board computer software integrity in diagnostic or emission critical electronically reprogrammable powertrain control units. The CVN shall be made available through the standardized data link connector in accordance with the SAE J1979 specifications. The CVN shall be capable of being used to determine if the emission-related software and/or calibration data are valid and applicable for that vehicle and CAL ID.
(4.7.2) Manufacturers shall request Executive Officer approval of the algorithm used to calculate the CVN. Executive Officer approval of the algorithm shall be based on the complexity of the algorithm and the difficulty in achieving the same CVN with modified calibration values.
(4.7.3) The CVN shall be calculated at least once per driving cycle and stored until the CVN is subsequently updated. Except for immediately after a reprogramming event or a non-volatile memory clear or for the first 30 seconds of engine operation after a volatile memory clear or battery disconnect, the stored value shall be made available through the data link connector to a generic scan tool in accordance with SAE J1979 specifications. The stored CVN value may not be erased when fault memory is erased by a generic scan tool in accordance with SAE J1979 specifications or during normal vehicle shut down (i.e., key off, engine off).
(4.7.4) For purposes of Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) testing, manufacturers shall make the CVN and CAL ID combination information available for all 2005 and subsequent model year vehicles in a standardized electronic format that allows for off-board verification that the CVN is valid and appropriate for a specific vehicle and CAL ID.
(4.8) Vehicle Identification Number: All 2005 and subsequent model year vehicles shall have the vehicle identification number (VIN) available in a standardized format through the standardized data link connector in accordance with SAE J1979 specifications. Only one electronic control unit per vehicle shall report the VIN to an SAE J1978 scan tool.
(5) In-use Performance Ratio Tracking Requirements:
(5.1) For each monitor required in section (e) to separately report an in-use performance ratio, manufacturers shall implement software algorithms to report a numerator and denominator in the standardized format specified below and in accordance with the SAE J1979 specifications.
(5.2) Numerical Value Specifications:
(5.2.1) For the numerator, denominator, general denominator, and ignition cycle counter:
(A) Each number shall have a minimum value of zero and a maximum value of 65,535 with a resolution of one.
(B) Each number shall be reset to zero only when a non-volatile memory reset occurs (e.g., reprogramming event, etc.) or, if the numbers are stored in keep-alive memory (KAM), when KAM is lost due to an interruption in electrical power to the control module (e.g., battery disconnect, etc.). Numbers may not be reset to zero under any other circumstances including when a scan tool command to clear fault codes or reset KAM is received.
(C) If either the numerator or denominator for a specific component reaches the maximum value of 65,535 +2, both numbers shall be divided by two before either is incremented again to avoid overflow problems.
(D) If the ignition cycle counter reaches the maximum value of 65,535 +2, the ignition cycle counter shall rollover and increment to zero on the next ignition cycle to avoid overflow problems.
(E) If the general denominator reaches the maximum value of 65,535 +2, the general denominator shall rollover and increment to zero on the next driving cycle that meets the general denominator definition to avoid overflow problems.
(F) If a vehicle is not equipped with a component (e.g., oxygen sensor bank 2, secondary air system), the corresponding numerator and denominator for that specific component shall always be reported as zero.
(5.2.2) For the ratio:
(A) The ratio shall have a minimum value of zero and a maximum value of 7.99527 with a resolution of 0.000122.
(B) A ratio for a specific component shall be considered to be zero whenever the corresponding numerator is equal to zero and the corresponding denominator is not zero.
(C) A ratio for a specific component shall be considered to be the maximum value of 7.99527 if the corresponding denominator is zero or if the actual value of the numerator divided by the denominator exceeds the maximum value of 7.99527.
(6) Service Information:
(6.1) Motor vehicle manufacturers shall provide the aftermarket service and repair industry emission-related service information for all 1994 and subsequent model year vehicles equipped with OBD II systems as set forth in sections (f)(6.3) through (6.5). The requirements of section (f)(6) shall supersede the service information requirements set forth in title 13, CCR section 1968.1.
(6.2) The Executive Officer shall waive the requirements of sections (f)(6.3) through (6.5) upon determining that the ARB or U.S. EPA has adopted a service information regulation or rule that is in effect and operative and requires motor vehicle manufacturers to provide emission-related service information:
(A) of comparable or greater scope than required under these provisions;
(B) in an easily accessible format and in a timeframe that is equivalent to or exceeds the timeframes set forth below; and
(C) at fair and reasonable cost.
(6.3) For all 1994 and subsequent model year vehicles equipped with an OBD II system, manufacturers shall make readily available, at a fair and reasonable price to the automotive repair industry, vehicle repair procedures which allow effective emission-related diagnosis and repairs to be performed using only the SAE J1978 generic scan tool and commonly available, non-microprocessor based tools.
(6.4) As an alternative to publishing repair procedures required under section (f)(6.3), a manufacturer may publish repair procedures referencing the use of manufacturer-specific or enhanced equipment provided the manufacturer makes available to the aftermarket scan tool industry the information needed to manufacture scan tools to perform the same emission-related diagnosis and repair procedures (excluding any reprogramming) in a comparable manner as the manufacturer-specific diagnostic scan tool.
(6.5) For all 1996 and subsequent model year vehicles, manufacturers shall make available:
(A) Information to utilize the test results reported as required in section (f)(4.5) (or title 13, CCR section 1968.1 (l)(3.0) for 1996 through 2002 model year vehicles). The information must include a description of the test and test result, associated fault codes with the test result, and scaling, units, and conversion factors necessary to convert the results to engineering units.
(B) A generic description of each of the diagnostics used to meet the requirements of this regulation. The generic description must include a text description of how the diagnostic is performed, typical enable conditions, typical malfunction thresholds, typical monitoring time, fault codes associated with the diagnostic, and test results (section (f)(4.5)) associated with the diagnostic. Vehicles that have diagnostics not adequately represented by the typical values identified above shall be specifically identified along with the appropriate typical values.
(C) Information necessary to execute each of the diagnostics used to meet the requirements of sections (e)(1) through (e)(8). The information must include either a description of sample driving patterns designed to be operated in-use or a written description of the conditions the vehicle needs to operate in to execute each of the diagnostics necessary to change the readiness status from "not complete" to "complete" for all monitors. The information shall be able to be used to exercise all necessary monitors in a single driving cycle as well as be able to be used to exercise the monitors to individually change the readiness status for each specific monitor from "not complete" to "complete".
(7) Exceptions to Standardization Requirements.
(7.1) For medium-duty vehicles equipped with engines certified on an engine dynamometer, a manufacturer may request Executive Officer approval to use both: (1) an alternate diagnostic connector, and emission-related message structure and format in lieu of the standardization requirements in sections (f)(2) and (4) that refer to SAE J1962, SAE J1978, and SAE J1979, and (2) an alternate communication protocol in lieu of the identified protocols in section (f)(3). The Executive Officer shall approve the request if:
(A) The ARB has adopted an on-board diagnostic regulation for heavy-duty vehicles and the alternate diagnostic connector, communication protocol, and emission-related message format and structure requested by the manufacturer meets the standardization requirements in the on-board diagnostic regulation for heavy-duty vehicles; or
(B) For 2004 and 2005 model year vehicles only, the alternate diagnostic connector, communication protocol, and emission-related message format and structure requested by the manufacturer meet the standardization requirements of SAE J1939 and the manufacturer has implemented features (e.g., readiness code indication via the MIL pursuant to section (f)(4.1.3)) that will allow the vehicle to be tested in a California Inspection and Maintenance test facility. If the ARB has not adopted a heavy-duty vehicle on-board diagnostic regulation by July 1, 2004, the Executive Officer shall extend the provisions of this section through the 2006 model year. The Executive Officer shall extend the provisions of this section one additional model year on each subsequent July 1 if the ARB has not adopted a heavy-duty vehicle on-board diagnostic regulation by that date.
(7.2) For 2004 model year vehicles only, wherever the requirements of sections (f)(2) and (f)(4) reflect a substantive change from the requirements of title 13, CCR sections 1968.1(e), (f), (k), or (l) for the 2003 model year vehicles, the manufacturer may request Executive Officer approval to continue to use the requirements of section 1968.1 in lieu of the requirements of sections (f)(2) and (f)(4). The Executive Officer shall approve the request upon determining that the manufacturer has submitted data and/or engineering evaluation that demonstrate that software or hardware changes would be required to comply with the requirements of sections (f)(2) and (f)(4) and that the system complies with the requirements of sections 1968.1(e), (f), (k), and (l).
(g) Monitoring System Demonstration Requirements for Certification
(1) General.
(1.1) Certification requires that manufacturers submit emission test data from one or more durability demonstration test vehicles (test vehicles). For applications certified on engine dynamometers, engines may be used instead of vehicles.
(1.2) The Executive Officer may approve other demonstration protocols if the manufacturer can provide comparable assurance that the malfunction criteria are chosen based on meeting emission requirements and that the timeliness of malfunction detection is within the constraints of the applicable monitoring requirements.
(1.3) For flexible fuel vehicles capable of operating on more than one fuel or fuel combinations, the manufacturer shall submit a plan for providing emission test data to the Executive Officer for approval. The Executive Officer shall approve the plan if it is determined to be representative of expected in-use fuel or fuel combinations and provides accurate and timely evaluation of the monitored systems.
(2) Selection of Test Vehicles:
(2.1.1) Prior to submitting any applications for certification for a model year, a manufacturer shall notify the Executive Officer of the test groups planned for that model year. The Executive Officer will then select the test group(s) that the manufacturer shall use as demonstration test vehicles to provide emission test data. The selection of test vehicles for production vehicle evaluation, as specified in section (j), may take place during this selection process.
(2.1.2) A manufacturer certifying one to five test groups in a model year shall provide emission test data from a test vehicle from one test group. A manufacturer certifying six to ten test groups in a model year shall provide emission test data from test vehicles from two test groups. A manufacturer certifying eleven or more test groups in a model year shall provide emission test data from test vehicles from three test groups. The Executive Officer may waive the requirement for submittal of data from one or more of the test groups if data have been previously submitted for all of the test groups.
(2.1.3) For the test vehicle(s), a manufacturer shall use a certification emission durability test vehicle(s), a representative high mileage vehicle(s), or a vehicle(s) aged to the end of the full useful life using an ARB-approved alternative durability procedure (ADP).
(3) Required Testing: Except as provided below, the manufacturer shall perform single-fault testing based on the applicable FTP test with the following components/systems set at their malfunction criteria limits as determined by the manufacturer for meeting the requirements of section (e):
(3.1) Oxygen Sensors:
(3.1.1) The manufacturer shall perform a test with all primary oxygen sensors used for fuel control simultaneously possessing a response rate deteriorated to the malfunction criteria limit. Manufacturers shall also perform a test for any other oxygen sensor parameter that can cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the applicable standards (e.g., shift in air/fuel ratio at which oxygen sensor switches, decreased amplitude, etc.). When performing additional test(s), all primary and secondary (if applicable) oxygen sensors used for fuel control shall be operating at the malfunction criteria limit for the applicable parameter only. All other primary and secondary oxygen sensor parameters shall be with normal characteristics.
(3.1.2) For vehicles utilizing sensors other than oxygen sensors for primary fuel control (e.g., linear air-fuel ratio sensors, universal sensors, etc.), the manufacturer shall submit, for Executive Officer approval, a demonstration test plan for performing testing of all of the sensor parameters that can cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the applicable standards. The Executive Officer shall approve the plan if it is determined that it will provide data that will assure proper performance of the diagnostics of the sensors, consistent with the intent of section (g).
(3.2) EGR System: The manufacturer shall perform a test at the low flow limit.
(3.3) VVT System: For 2006 and subsequent model year Low Emission II applications, the manufacturer shall perform a test at each target error limit and slow response limit calibrated to the malfunction criteria (e.g., 1.5 times the FTP standard) in sections (e)(13.2.1) and (13.2.2). In conducting the VVT system demonstration tests, the manufacturer may use computer modifications to cause the VVT system to operate at the malfunction limit if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the computer modifications produce test results equivalent to an induced hardware malfunction.
(3.4) Fuel System:
(3.4.1) For vehicles with adaptive feedback based on the primary fuel control sensor(s), the manufacturer shall perform a test with the adaptive feedback based on the primary fuel control sensor(s) at the rich limit(s) and a test at the lean limit(s) established by the manufacturer in section (e)(6.2.1) to detect a malfunction before emissions exceed 1.5 times the applicable standards.
(3.4.2) For vehicles with feedback based on a secondary fuel control sensor(s) and subject to the malfunction criteria in section (e)(6.2.1), the manufacturer shall perform a test with the feedback based on the secondary fuel control sensor(s) at the rich limit(s) and a test at the lean limit(s) established by the manufacturer in section (e)(6.2.1) to detect a malfunction before emissions exceed 1.5 times the applicable standards.
(3.4.3) For other fuel metering or control systems, the manufacturer shall perform a test at the criteria limit(s).
(3.4.4) For purposes of fuel system testing, the fault(s) induced may result in a uniform distribution of fuel and air among the cylinders. Non-uniform distribution of fuel and air used to induce a fault may not cause misfire. In conducting the fuel system demonstration tests, the manufacturer may use computer modifications to cause the fuel system to operate at the malfunction limit if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the computer modifications produce test results equivalent to an induced hardware malfunction.
(3.5) Misfire: The manufacturer shall perform a test at the malfunction criteria limit specified in section (e)(3.2.2). The testing is not required for diesel applications.
(3.6) Secondary Air System: The manufacturer shall perform a test at the low flow limit. Manufacturers performing only a functional check in accordance with the provisions of section (e)(5.2.2)(B) or (e)(5.2.4) shall perform a test at the functional check flow malfunction criteria.
(3.7) Catalyst System: The manufacturer shall perform a test using a catalyst system deteriorated to the malfunction criteria using methods established by the manufacturer in accordance with section (e)(1.2.6). For diesel vehicles, the manufacturer shall perform a test using a catalyst system deteriorated to the malfunction criteria in sections (e)(1.5.2)(A)(i), (B)(i), or (C)(i). For diesel vehicles with catalyst systems not subject to the malfunction criteria in section (e)(1.5.2)(A)(i), (B)(i), or (C)(i), manufacturers are not required to perform a catalyst demonstration test.
(3.8) Heated Catalyst Systems: The manufacturer shall perform a test at the malfunction criteria limit established by the manufacturer in section (e)(2.2).
(3.9) PM Trap: The manufacturer shall perform a test using a PM trap(s) deteriorated to the malfunction criteria in sections (e)(15.2.1) or (15.2.3). For diesel vehicles with a PM trap(s) not subject to the malfunction criteria in section (e)(15.2.1) or (15.2.3), manufacturers are not required to perform a PM trap(s) demonstration test.
(3.10) Other systems: The manufacturer shall conduct demonstration tests for all other emission control components designed and calibrated to a malfunction criteria of 1.5 times any of the applicable emission standards (e.g., hydrocarbon traps, adsorbers, etc.) under the provisions of section (e)(17).
(3.11) The manufacturer may electronically simulate deteriorated components but may not make any vehicle control unit modifications (unless otherwise excepted above) when performing demonstration tests. All equipment necessary to duplicate the demonstration test must be made available to the ARB upon request.
(4) Testing Protocol:
(4.1) Preconditioning: The manufacturer shall use an applicable FTP cycle (or Unified Cycle, if approved) for preconditioning test vehicles prior to conducting each of the above emission tests. Upon determining that a manufacturer has provided data and/or an engineering evaluation that demonstrate that additional preconditioning is necessary to stabilize the emission control system, the Executive Officer shall allow the manufacturer to perform a single additional preconditioning cycle, identical to the initial preconditioning cycle, or a Federal Highway Fuel Economy Driving Cycle, following a ten minute (20 minutes for medium duty engines certified on an engine dynamometer) hot soak after the initial preconditioning cycle. The manufacturer may not require the test vehicle to be cold soaked prior to conducting preconditioning cycles in order for the monitoring system testing to be successful.
(4.2) Test Sequence:
(4.2.1) The manufacturer shall set the system or component on the test vehicle for which detection is to be tested at the criteria limit(s) prior to conducting the applicable preconditioning cycle(s). If a second preconditioning cycle is permitted in accordance with section (g)(4.1) above, the manufacturer may adjust the system or component to be tested before conducting the second preconditioning cycle. The manufacturer may not replace, modify, or adjust the system or component after the last preconditioning cycle has taken place.
(4.2.2) After preconditioning, the test vehicle shall be operated over the applicable FTP cycle (or Unified Cycle, if approved) to allow for the initial detection of the tested system or component malfunction. This driving cycle may be omitted from the testing protocol if it is unnecessary. If required by the designated monitoring strategy, a cold soak may be performed prior to conducting this driving cycle.
(4.2.3) The test vehicle shall then be operated over the cold start and hot start exhaust tests of the applicable FTP test. If monitoring during the Unified Cycle is approved, a second Unified Cycle may be conducted prior to the FTP test.
(4.3) A manufacturer required to test more than one test vehicle (section (g)(2.1.2)) may utilize internal calibration sign-off test procedures (e.g., forced cool downs, less frequently calibrated emission analyzers, etc.) instead of official FTP test procedures to obtain the emission test data required in section (g) for all but one of the required test vehicles. The manufacturer may elect this option if the data from the alternative test procedure are representative of official FTP emission test results. Manufacturers using this option are still responsible for meeting the malfunction criteria specified in section (e) when emission tests are performed in accordance with official FTP test procedures.
(5) Evaluation Protocol:
(5.1.1) For all tests conducted under section (g), the MIL shall be illuminated upon detection of the tested system or component malfunction before the hot start exhaust test of the complete FTP test (or before the hot start portion of the last Unified Cycle, if applicable) in accordance with requirements of section (e).
(5.1.2) For all tests conducted under section (g), manufacturers may use Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC) emission results in lieu of Non-Methane Organic Gas (NMOG) emission results for comparison to the applicable FTP standards or malfunction criteria (e.g., 1.5 times the FTP standards). If NMHC emission results are used in lieu of NMOG, the emission result shall be multiplied by 1.04 to generate an equivalent NMOG result before comparison to the applicable FTP standards.
(5.1.3) If the MIL illuminates prior to emissions exceeding the applicable malfunction criteria specified in section (e), no further demonstration is required. With respect to the misfire monitor demonstration test, if a manufacturer has elected to use the minimum misfire malfunction criteria of one percent as allowed in section (e)(3.2.2)(A), no further demonstration is required if the MIL illuminates with misfire implanted at the malfunction criteria limit.
(5.1.4) If the MIL does not illuminate when the systems or components are set at their limit(s), the criteria limit or the OBD II system is not acceptable.
(A) Except for testing of the catalyst system, if the MIL first illuminates after emissions exceed the applicable malfunction criteria specified in section (e), the test vehicle shall be retested with the tested system or component adjusted so that the MIL will illuminate before emissions exceed the applicable malfunction criteria specified in section (e). If the component cannot be adjusted to meet this criterion because a default fuel or emission control strategy is used when a malfunction is detected (e.g., open loop fuel control used after an O2 sensor malfunction is determined, etc.), the test vehicle shall be retested with the component adjusted to the worst acceptable limit (i.e., the applicable monitor indicates the component is performing at or slightly better than the malfunction criteria). For the OBD II system to be approved, the MIL must not illuminate during this test and the vehicle emissions must be below the applicable malfunction criteria specified in section (e).
(B) In testing the catalyst system, if the MIL first illuminates after emissions exceed the applicable emission threshold(s) specified in section (e), the tested vehicle shall be retested with a less deteriorated catalyst system (i.e., more of the applicable engine out pollutants are converted). For the OBD II system to be approved, testing shall be continued until either of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The MIL is illuminated and emissions do not exceed the thresholds specified in section (e); or
(ii) The manufacturer demonstrates that the MIL illuminates within acceptable upper and lower limits of the threshold specified in section (e) for MIL illumination. The manufacturer shall demonstrate acceptable limits by continuing testing until the test results show:
a. The MIL is illuminated and emissions exceed the thresholds specified in section (e) by 10 percent or less of the applicable standard (e.g., emissions are less than 1.85 times the applicable standard for a malfunction criterion of 1.75 times the standard); and
b. The MIL is not illuminated and emissions are below the thresholds specified in section (e) by no more than 20 percent of the standard (e.g., emissions are between 1.55 and 1.75 times the applicable standard for a malfunction criterion of 1.75 times the standard).
(5.1.5) If an OBD II system is determined unacceptable by the above criteria, the manufacturer may recalibrate and retest the system on the same test vehicle. In such a case, the manufacturer must confirm, by retesting, that all systems and components that were tested prior to recalibration and are affected by the recalibration function properly under the OBD II system as recalibrated.
(6) Confirmatory Testing:
(6.1) The ARB may perform confirmatory testing to verify the emission test data submitted by the manufacturer under the requirements of section (g) comply with the requirements of section (g) and the malfunction criteria identified in section (e). This confirmatory testing is limited to the vehicle configuration represented by the demonstration vehicle(s). For purposes of section (g)(6), vehicle configuration shall have the same meaning as the term used in 40 CFR 86.082-2.
(6.2) The ARB or its designee may install appropriately deteriorated or malfunctioning components in an otherwise properly functioning test vehicle of a test group represented by the demonstration test vehicle(s) (or simulate a deteriorated or malfunctioning component) in order to test any of the components or systems required to be tested in section (g). Upon request by the Executive Officer, the manufacturer shall make available a vehicle and all test equipment (e.g., malfunction simulators, deteriorated components, etc.) necessary to duplicate the manufacturer's testing. The Executive Officer shall make the request within six months of reviewing and approving the demonstration test vehicle data submitted by the manufacturer for the specific test group.
(6.3) Vehicles with OBD II systems represented by the demonstration vehicle(s) may be recalled for corrective action if a representative sample of vehicles uniformly fails to meet the requirements of section (g).
(h) Certification Documentation
(1) When submitting an application for certification of a test group, the manufacturer shall submit the following documentation. If any of the items listed below are standardized for all of a manufacturer's test groups, the manufacturer may, for each model year, submit one set of documents covering the standardized items for all of its test groups.
(1.1) For the required documentation not standardized across all test groups, the manufacturer may propose to the Executive Officer that documentation covering a specified combination of test groups be used. These combinations shall be known as "OBD II groups". Executive Officer approval shall be granted for those groupings that include test groups using the same OBD II strategies and similar calibrations. If approved by the Executive Officer, the manufacturer may submit one set of documentation from one or more representative test group(s) that are a part of the OBD II group. The Executive Officer shall determine whether a selected test group(s) is representative of the OBD II group as a whole. To be approved as representative, the test group(s) must possess the most stringent emission standards and OBD II monitoring requirements and cover all of the emission control devices within the OBD II group.
(1.2) With Executive Officer approval, one or more of the documentation requirements of section (h) may be waived or modified if the information required would be redundant or unnecessarily burdensome to generate.
(1.3) To the extent possible, the certification documentation shall use SAE J1930 terms, abbreviations, and acronyms.
(2) The following information shall be submitted as "Part 1" of the certification application. Except as provided below for demonstration data, the Executive Officer will not issue an Executive Order certifying the covered vehicles without the information having been provided. The information must include:
(2.1) A description of the functional operation of the OBD II system including a complete written description for each monitoring strategy that outlines every step in the decision making process of the monitor. Algorithms, diagrams, samples of data, and/or other graphical representations of the monitoring strategy shall be included where necessary to adequately describe the information.
(2.2) A table, in the standardized format detailed in Attachment A of ARB Mail-Out #95-20, May 22, 1995, incorporated by reference.
(2.2.1) The table must include the following information for each monitored component or system (either computer-sensed or -controlled) of the emission control system:
(A) corresponding fault code
(B) monitoring method or procedure for malfunction detection
(C) primary malfunction detection parameter and its type of output signal
(D) fault criteria limits used to evaluate output signal of primary parameter
(E) other monitored secondary parameters and conditions (in engineering units) necessary for malfunction detection
(F) monitoring time length and frequency of checks
(G) criteria for storing fault code
(H) criteria for illuminating malfunction indicator light
(I) criteria used for determining out of range values and input component rationality checks
(2.2.2) Wherever possible, the table shall use the following engineering units:
(A) Degrees Celsius (<> C) for all temperature criteria
(B) KiloPascals (KPa) for all pressure criteria related to manifold or atmospheric pressure
(C) Grams (g) for all intake air mass criteria
(D) Pascals (Pa) for all pressure criteria related to evaporative system vapor pressure
(E) Miles per hour (mph) for all vehicle speed criteria
(F) Relative percent (%) for all relative throttle position criteria (as defined in SAE J1979)
(G) Voltage (V) for all absolute throttle position criteria (as defined in SAE J1979)
(H) Per crankshaft revolution (/rev) for all changes per ignition event based criteria (e.g., g/rev instead of g/stroke or g/firing)
(I) Per second (/sec) for all changes per time based criteria (e.g., g/sec)
(J) Percent of nominal tank volume (%) for all fuel tank level criteria
(2.3) A logic flowchart describing the step by step evaluation of the enable criteria and malfunction criteria for each monitored emission-related component or system.
(2.4) Emission test data, a description of the testing sequence (e.g., the number and types of preconditioning cycles), approximate time (in seconds) of MIL illumination during the test, fault code(s) and freeze frame information stored at the time of detection, corresponding SAE J1979 test results (e.g. Mode/Service $06) stored during the test, and a description of the modified or deteriorated components used for fault simulation with respect to the demonstration tests specified in section (g). The Executive Officer may approve conditional certification of a test group prior to the submittal of this data for ARB review and approval. Factors to be considered by the Executive Officer in approving the late submission of information identified in section (h)(2.4) shall include the reason for the delay in the data collection, the length of time until data will be available, and the demonstrated previous success of the manufacturer in submitting the data prior to certification.
(2.5) Data supporting the misfire monitor, including:
(2.5.1) The established percentage of misfire that can be tolerated without damaging the catalyst over the full range of engine speed and load conditions.
(2.5.2) Data demonstrating the probability of detection of misfire events of the misfire monitoring system over the full engine speed and load operating range for the following misfire patterns: random cylinders misfiring at the malfunction criteria established in section (e)(3.2.2), one cylinder continuously misfiring, and paired cylinders continuously misfiring.
(2.5.3) Data identifying all disablement of misfire monitoring that occurs during the FTP and US06 cycles. For every disablement that occurs during the cycles, the data should identify: when the disablement occurred relative to the driver's trace, the number of engine revolutions that each disablement was present for, and which disable condition documented in the certification application caused the disablement.
(2.5.4) Manufacturers are not required to use the durability demonstration vehicle to collect the misfire data for sections (h)(2.5.1) though (2.5.3).
(2.6) Data supporting the limit for the time between engine starting and attaining the designated heating temperature for after-start heated catalyst systems.
(2.7) A listing of all electronic powertrain input and output signals (including those not monitored by the OBD II system) that identifies which signals are monitored by the OBD II system.
(2.8) A written description of all parameters and conditions necessary to begin closed loop operation.
(2.9) A summary table identifying every test group and each of the OBD II phase-in requirements that apply to each test group.
(2.10) A written identification of the communication protocol utilized by each test group for communication with an SAE J1978 scan tool.
(2.11) A pictorial representation or written description of the diagnostic connector location including any covers or labels.
(2.12) A written description of the method used by the manufacturer to meet the requirements of section (e)(9) for PCV system monitoring including diagrams or pictures of valve and/or hose connections.
(2.13) Any other information determined by the Executive Officer to be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this regulation.
(3) "Part 2". The following information shall be submitted by January 1st of the applicable model year:
(3.1) A listing and block diagram of the input parameters used to calculate or determine calculated load values and the input parameters used to calculate or determine fuel trim values.
(3.2) A scale drawing of the MIL and the fuel cap indicator light, if present, which specifies location in the instrument panel, wording, color, and intensity.
(4) "Part 3". The following information shall be submitted upon request of the Executive Officer:
(4.1) Data supporting the criteria used to detect a malfunction when catalyst deterioration causes emissions to exceed the applicable malfunction criteria specified in section (e).
(4.2) Data supporting the criteria used to detect evaporative system leaks.
(4.3) Any other information determined by the Executive Officer to be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this regulation.
(i) Deficiencies
(1) For 2004 and subsequent model year vehicles, the Executive Officer, upon receipt of an application from the manufacturer, may certify vehicles even though said vehicles may not comply with one or more of the requirements of title 13, CCR section 1968.2. In granting the certification, the Executive Officer shall consider the following factors: the extent to which the requirements of section 1968.2 are satisfied overall based on a review of the vehicle applications in question, the relative performance of the resultant OBD II system compared to systems fully compliant with the requirements of title 13, CCR section 1968.2, and a demonstrated good-faith effort on the part of the manufacturer to: (1) meet the requirements in full by evaluating and considering the best available monitoring technology; and (2) come into compliance as expeditiously as possible. The Executive Officer may not grant certification to a vehicle in which the reported noncompliance for which a deficiency is sought would be subject to ordered recall pursuant to section 1968.5 (c)(3)(A).
(2) Manufacturers of non-complying systems are subject to fines pursuant to section 43016 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specified fines apply to the third and subsequently identified deficiencies, with the exception that fines shall apply to all monitoring system deficiencies wherein a required monitoring strategy is completely absent from the OBD system.
(3) The fines are in the amount of $50 per deficiency per vehicle for non-compliance with any of the monitoring requirements specified in sections (e)(1) through (e)(8), (e)(11), (e)(13) through (e)(15), and (e)(17), and $25 per deficiency per vehicle for non-compliance with any other requirement of section 1968.2. In determining the identified order of deficiencies, deficiencies subject to a $50 fine are identified first. Total fines per vehicle under section (i) may not exceed $500 per vehicle and are payable to the State Treasurer for deposit in the Air Pollution Control Fund.
(4) Manufacturers must re-apply for Executive Officer approval of a deficiency each model year. In considering the request to carry-over a deficiency, the Executive Officer shall consider the factors identified in section (i)(1) including the manufacturer's progress towards correcting the deficiency. The Executive Officer may not allow manufacturers to carry over monitoring system deficiencies for more than two model years unless it can be demonstrated that substantial vehicle hardware modifications and additional lead time beyond two years would be necessary to correct the deficiency, in which case the Executive Officer shall allow the deficiency to be carried over for three model years.
(5) Except as allowed in section (i)(6), deficiencies may not be retroactively granted after certification.
(6) Request for retroactive deficiencies
(6.1) Manufacturers may request that the Executive Officer grant a deficiency and amend a vehicle's certification to conform to the granting of the deficiencies during the first 6 months after commencement of normal production for each aspect of the monitoring system: (a) identified by the manufacturer (during testing required by section (j)(2) or any other testing) to be functioning different than the certified system or otherwise not meeting the requirements of any aspect of section 1968.2; and (b) reported to the Executive Officer. If the Executive Officer grants the deficiencies and amended certification, their approval would be retroactive to the start of production.
(6.2) Executive Officer approval of the request for a retroactive deficiency shall be granted provided that the conditions necessary for a pre-certification deficiency determination are satisfied (see section (i)(1)) and the manufacturer could not have reasonably anticipated the identified problem before commencement of production.
(6.3) In granting the amended certification, the Executive Officer shall include any approved post-production deficiencies together with all previously approved deficiencies in computing fines in accordance with section (i)(2).
(7) Any OBD II system installed on a production vehicle that fails to conform with the certified OBD II system for that vehicle or otherwise fails to meet the requirements of section 1968.2 and has not been granted a deficiency pursuant to the provisions of section (i)(1) through (i)(6) are considered non-compliant. The vehicles are subject to enforcement pursuant to applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code and title 13, CCR section 1968.5.
(j) Production Vehicle Evaluation Testing
(1) Verification of Standardized Requirements.
(1.1) Requirement: For 2005 and subsequent model year vehicles, manufacturers shall perform testing to verify that all vehicles meet the requirements of section (f)(3) and (f)(4) relevant to proper communication of required emission-related messages to an SAE J1978 scan tool.
(1.2) Selection of Test Vehicles: Manufacturers shall perform this testing every model year on one production vehicle from every unique calibration within one month of the start of normal production for that calibration. Manufacturers may request Executive Officer approval to group multiple calibrations together and test one representative calibration per group. The Executive Officer shall approve the request upon finding that the software designed to comply with the standardization requirements of section (f) in the representative calibration vehicle is identical (e.g., communication protocol message timing, number of supported data stream parameters, etc.) toall others in the group and that any differences in the calibrations are not relevant with respect to meeting the criteria in section (j)(1.4). (continued)